The mass hysteria I have seen and heard having to do with that ridiculous book by that Wolfe character. Ig his narrative is to be believed there is a madman turned loose in the W.H. holding the nuclear codes with a vice like grip ready to blow any minute. Oh, and everyone around him know this and yet do nothing paralyzed from doing anything lest they be declared as being disloyal.

Just what is it are these people who believe that these charges of Trump being unfit to serve as POTUS suggesting should happen if and probably when V.P Pence and no one in the cabinet want to invoke the 25th. amendment?? Are they suggesting a Military/Intelligence/SCOTUS COUP??

I say HOGWASH! It simply isn't possible. No, what this book is just like the "hit job" piece's that came out from other presidents and a close former confidant. People such as Bill Clinton and the book by former advisor Dick Morris. G.W. Bush was even jabbed by Karl Rove himself after Rove got a little to big for his britches oh, and how soon we have forgot Donna Brazile and the complete take down of for former patron H.R.C. ?? I think it was what was in Brazile's book that probably led to the F.B.I. reopening their corruption investigations of her and her husband and anyone else connected to their foundation and how many of those people go back to her Senatorial days and her Sec. of State days. It IS possible that there is a second scandal every bit a big as the first scandal.

So, this book which seems to be 99% the maniacal musings of one Steve Bannon whose head appears to have inflated to an incredible size in a an increasingly fast speed that when the pin popped his head like a giant zit spewing his weird fantasies about "deep state" intrigue controlling everyone but himself, Steve Bannon and oh btw he controls Trump, or so he says.

This is exactly the type of "news" that we the electorate need to do our due diligence by checking a story from several angles and to check for possible biases that the writers/editors and/or publishers may have for giving certain stories a certain slant.

Yea, and there was a whole bunch of kiss and tell books that came out during the Reagan presidency, too.

There really ought to be some type of a ban on these kiss and tell books, perhaps some type of pledge that they would have to take before accepting jobs within the administration, that would last until the POTUS is out of office or at least not eligible for re-election.

I do know that in the months before the 1980 elections, that TV stations did not show any Ronald Reagan movies, and that there was some discussion about the movie "PT 109" being released in 1963 a year before Kennedy's run for re-election. Those are two opposite examples of the same issue, ie of mass media shaping an image of a POTUS or major party nominee.

The problem is that there's this little bugaboo called the 1st amendment that has to be gotten around.

Trump is suggesting a change in the liability laws so people can sue easier for books or news articles.He's stated before that he wanted to suppress the press so now we see some pressure on freedom of speech.Not sure how far it will go, but it is concerning that it's even being considered at the top.

Being able to put out false, biased, or half-true news stories is not freedom of speech. It's slander. There should be tighter vetting for professionals using a medium to deliver news for profit.

Freedom of speech is fine. Freedom of the Press is fine. This slanderous, half-truth media we currently have, especially on the Internet, is doing a disservice to journalism as a whole. There are no longer any trusted faces in journalism as their used to be because there don't appear to be any journalistic standards for accuracy for the news.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Being able to put out false, biased, or half-true news stories is not freedom of speech. It's slander. There should be tighter vetting for professionals using a medium to deliver news for profit.

Freedom of speech is fine. Freedom of the Press is fine. This slanderous, half-truth media we currently have, especially on the Internet, is doing a disservice to journalism as a whole. There are no longer any trusted faces in journalism as their used to be because there don't appear to be any journalistic standards for accuracy for the news.

Absouletly true, but what are we going to do about it? Even if we were able to take care of business within our own borders, it's not going to stop those that do the same thing outside them. It's the same problem that LE has trying to stop the scam artists.

In the U.S. the press has a very big responsibility put on it and with it comes a big set of privileges. Unfortunately, some in the press abuse those privileges. E.g. The press does not have to give up their "source" when writing a story and they can claim "anonymous" sources gave them the info. There's no way to validate that claim or invalidate it. So that carries a huge responsibility with it. How do we trust the press if they write stories like this that everyone knows is false?

Woolf says he has sources and taped interviews. I’m sure there are some journalistic embellishments but it reads pretty much like the tweets read and the public behavior of this lunatic . The mere fact that they granted unlimited access to a tabloid reporter demonstrated the incompetence of the presidents handlers . The fact that trump expected a fluff piece from a guy who had already written about him as citizen trump demonstrates his delusional self image and need for loyaltyand affirmation.

Every administration has its tell all, yeah but there’s never been one remotely this bizzare. Is it 100% made up If 20% is true it’s scary. I’m pretty sure it’s 90+%.In other news bannon got a lawyer and is scheduled to meet the investigators and surely Bob Mueller as well.Now that he’s “sloppy steve” and broke I’m sure he has an interesting story as chief strategist through the early months of this investigation Impeach or 25th Amendment please

RiverDog wrote:Absouletly true, but what are we going to do about it? Even if we were able to take care of business within our own borders, it's not going to stop those that do the same thing outside them. It's the same problem that LE has trying to stop the scam artists.

You can't do anything about social media. Journalists you can clean up with lawsuits and firings. I'd bet money Fox News would be calling Trump and saying don't even start this or we won't be on the air long. Trump might not like lawsuits for public people pushing bs facts as he uses many. Any move by Trump to push media truth would affect him as well since he is notorious for reading fake news sources amenable to his ideas. That's why this would never happen.

If I had my druthers, I'd charge fines for all this fake news or "Could be" stories or the like. I see so much garbage "news" based on tweets, maybe he said, someone might have said, I heard, and other such garbage that I've lost near complete faith in the news.

Aseahawkfan wrote:If I had my druthers, I'd charge fines for all this fake news or "Could be" stories or the like. I see so much garbage "news" based on tweets, maybe he said, someone might have said, I heard, and other such garbage that I've lost near complete faith in the news.

I hear ya, and I wish the hell we could do something about the "tabloid journalism".

But there's a lot of problems just with proving "fake news". It's like trying to nail Jell-O to a wall. If most or even just some of it is basically true, is the entire story to be considered "fake"? And are you going to foot the legal bill to take someone to court that's spewing "fake news"?

It's a slippery slope that we head down when we, or rather the courts, start regulating what people can say and what they can't. So rather than try to stop fake news, the most practical tactic we can use is for us as intelligent individuals to to be able to recognize fake news when we see it and call it for what it is.

Which brings us to the real problem: We are a country comprised of morons of which 30% of us can't even find the Pacific Ocean on a map.

burrrton wrote:You mean your druthers on a bizarro world where the First Amendment doesn't exist?

Not sure you'd like it as much as you think you would if so.

The only part I wouldn't like when it comes to improving journalistic standards requiring things like printing entire speeches rather than cherry-picking quotes to make someone look bad or allowing people to toss out random, unsubstantiated accusations from decades ago that ruin careers or the like is the fact that certain people would use any laws to improve journalistic honesty in an abusive manner, just as they use the freedom in an abusive manner. Unfortunately, anything involving human beings is going to be used in an abusive, selfish manner due to the nature of humans. The exact reason why I understand why the wealthy are building robots to replace humans in many areas. Not having to deal with human stupidity, weakness, and general inability to think logically allows them more control of irrational, damaging behavior like we see all over the world. The real answer to mass shootings, Islamic terrorism, and the like is robots ensuring these people are controlled and managed, so that people not engaged in such vile behavior are protected.

RiverDog wrote:I hear ya, and I wish the hell we could do something about the "tabloid journalism".

But there's a lot of problems just with proving "fake news". It's like trying to nail Jell-O to a wall. If most or even just some of it is basically true, is the entire story to be considered "fake"? And are you going to foot the legal bill to take someone to court that's spewing "fake news"?

It's a slippery slope that we head down when we, or rather the courts, start regulating what people can say and what they can't. So rather than try to stop fake news, the most practical tactic we can use is for us as intelligent individuals to to be able to recognize fake news when we see it and call it for what it is.

Which brings us to the real problem: We are a country comprised of morons of which 30% of us can't even find the Pacific Ocean on a map.

Everything involving humans is a slippery slope. We as a race seem incapable of doing anything as intended or in an efficient, intelligent manner on a consistent basis.

I'm all for holding people's feet to the fire, but I think the part you and everyone else who advocates for ripping up the 1A wouldn't like is when people who disagree with you are calling the shots.

It's that old saw: people who advocate for central planning always envision *themselves* as the central planners.

On a related note, we see this in Presidential politics today- everybody who advocates/advocated for the POTUS to bypass Congress to get every idea of his implemented now barks like hell when it's not their guy doing the end-around.

burrrton wrote:I'm all for holding people's feet to the fire, but I think the part you and everyone else who advocates for ripping up the 1A wouldn't like is when people who disagree with you are calling the shots.

It's that old saw: people who advocate for central planning always envision *themselves* as the central planners.

On a related note, we see this in Presidential politics today- everybody who advocates/advocated for the POTUS to bypass Congress to get every idea of his implemented now barks like hell when it's not their guy doing the end-around.

I've no interest in ripping up the first amendment. I don't care what the average Tom, Dick, and Harry spout off. I only have an interest in improving journalistic integrity. A higher standard for the press who are expected to deliver us truthful, accurate news would be nice. But Trump and any conservative complaining about fake news while listening to Fox News is hypocritical. Fox News is the king of news for ratings as they attempt to distill complex subjects into soundbytes used by mom and pop conservatives to back up their living room conservative beliefs. I have to listen to so much of it from both sides I want to stay in my home away from as many people as possible. Their lack of circumspection and hypocrisy is annoying to say the least.

Aseahawkfan wrote:The only part I wouldn't like when it comes to improving journalistic standards requiring things like printing entire speeches rather than cherry-picking quotes to make someone look bad or allowing people to toss out random, unsubstantiated accusations from decades ago that ruin careers or the like is the fact that certain people would use any laws to improve journalistic honesty in an abusive manner, just as they use the freedom in an abusive manner. Unfortunately, anything involving human beings is going to be used in an abusive, selfish manner due to the nature of humans. The exact reason why I understand why the wealthy are building robots to replace humans in many areas. Not having to deal with human stupidity, weakness, and general inability to think logically allows them more control of irrational, damaging behavior like we see all over the world. The real answer to mass shootings, Islamic terrorism, and the like is robots ensuring these people are controlled and managed, so that people not engaged in such vile behavior are protected.

The only way they could get around the first amendment is if the news industry were to self regulate. If they had some type of association that could certifiy news sources as trusted and continuously review stories and documentaries to insure their accuracy, sort of like consumer protection agencies, then if you saw a story that came from a certified source you could believe it as being authentic.

I can remember the Dan Rather-Bush Air National Guard debacle. Multiple news sources spotted the critical documents the story was based on as fake, yet CBS decided to run with it and aired it on the hugely popular "60 Minutes" just two months ahead of the 2004 election. Under heavy criticism, CBS formed an independent panel to review the story after which they were forced to admit that serious mistakes were made and forced resignations of several involved. Although he had already decided to retire, it unmasked Rather as nothing more than a political hack. A similar situation involving Peter Arnett and CNN happened involving a fictitious story he promoted called "Operation Tailwind", although this time it was the Pentagon that brought pressure onto CNN and forced out Arnett and others out.

If the major news agencies representing a broad political spectrum could ever get together and set up a review board, they could set basic journalistic standards for those seeking to obtain their certification.

A higher standard for the press who are expected to deliver us truthful, accurate news would be nice.

It would be nice, and I think we're working toward it- just don't ask to legislate it. That's not happening, nor should it.

Fox News is the king of news for ratings as they attempt to distill complex subjects into soundbytes used by mom and pop conservatives to back up their living room conservative beliefs.

I don't watch it, but I'll take your word for it, and add that they're *far* from the only outlet doing such. If I had a dollar for every story broken by CNN/NBC/ABC/etc that they had to eventually retract, I'd retire with RD.

If the major news agencies representing a broad political spectrum could ever get together and set up a review board, they could set basic journalistic standards for those seeking to obtain their certification.

Eh, it'd just end up with the same goofs reviewing the content that are f*cking things up now.

The answer for bad information is more information, not some exalted source deciding if it's good or bad.

You guys are probably right. The reality is people will believe what they will believe. It often doesn't matter what is proven or not, they want to believe it. Even on here we have people that believe whatever tripe gets tossed our there or engage in cognitive dissonance that makes no sense like believing in the Iraq War was fake while at the same time not believing the 2nd Amendment was meant to ensure American citizens' ability to violently revolt or the possible need to if the government is creating false wars that kill tens of thousands. I guess I've come to the conclusion that humans are incapable of consistency in belief and will adjust beliefs when faced with action that disrupts their current comfort levels. Real action does not happen until survival pressures threaten them or extraordinary leadership motivates change. We haven't had extraordinary leadership in a long, long time.